Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

Especially seeing as, if it does get deployed and someone is prosecuted based on evidence from it, the first thing the accused will do is turn around and say "Hey, even the local police force doesn't believe in this crap, so how can you use it against me in court?"

I haven't kept up on the technology recently but a former co-worker had pointed me to this when his previous employer became involved with Shot Spotter. The technology simply provided police with the time and location of the gunshots so they could respond. In neighborhoods where the residents live in fear of those committing the violence, police were not getting any reports of gun activity due to that fear. Police were then able to get to the scene in a reasonable time so they had a higher chance of help

You gotta understand the police mentality. They resist any kind of change, more so if it's going to make them busy and even more if it'll get them in trouble. Picture highschool, if you will. Remember the jocks on the football team? By and large, it's the same mentality.

I implemented a software project for a police department. I did my homework, fully vetted the system. I had limited trials and corrected what needed to be corrected. Come deployment, not a single officer used it. After months of work, the project was canned because the offers had "tried it and it didn't work". Aside from my early adopters ( the ones who had used it while it beta so I could squash any last minute bugs ), not a single officer had logged in to the system.

Later I find out that they were upset that they weren't getting their 12% annual contract raise, and because the software had cost something on the order of 10,000, they were boycotting it for dick-swinging reasons. These aren't the kind of people I would base any decision on.

That said, it speaks more that the politicians do want this system. That'd be enough to terminate any project as far as I am concerned.

I'll believe that you did the work you claim. Even the best software fails for reasons beyond the developers' control. But to claim that it was from 'dick-swinging' sounds... well.. petty and bitter. Especially since the statement started with "Later I find out..."

Pretty much, you're bitter from hearsay... And you're pissed that they cut your project because of lack of adoption. Sorry. But don't take it out on *all* cops.

Last time I heard of this technology, it worked great in open areas. But if it was deployed in a place with many hard surfaces, like the average city, it became confused by all the echoes and didn't do so well.

Bats don't have any problem with cave interiors, so it would seem locating gunshots despite the hard surfaces should be possible, maybe even easier with all the echoes. Maybe they've solved this by now?

There any independent lab or testing organization that can say? Or any other organization tha

I'm not a physicist, but it seems that it would be relatively trivial to work out the location of a sound in an open space by using 3 or more mics. Adding echoes certainly wouldn't simplify the algorithm, but yes it should still be possible to do it. I suspect you could probably train up a neural net to learn the echo patterns when sounds are made location (this would obviously need to be done individually for each installation), or you could do it the hard way and build a 3D model of the city and have anot

I live in Chicago and read quite a bit about the policing system and policies here and I fully agree with your assessment.

The police force needs to be seen as blue-collar guys who are most interested in their union and their own paycheck first than any kind of systemic change. I read a couple of policeman's blogs and its interesting to see how they oppose the existing camera system. Their big beef is that if this stuff costs money than thats money that can be used on raises, better perks, and more detectives.

While I dont know how well this system works, I do know that the CPD is biased and the assessment should come from a third party that is not affiliate with any union.

That said, the cost isn't low, but you'll only need it in some parts of the south side and some parts of the west side (garfield park, west humboldt park). I live in a neighborhood that borders Humboldt park and see some pretty bad things now and again. Chicago is in the middle of a crime/gang epidemic and we need new ideas and new technologies. Doubly so in areas where residents have bought into a 'dont snitch' philosophy and refuse to report crime to the police or answer any questions when they have been vicitiized, because of fear of gang retaliation. Cameras and microphones dont fear 'dont snitch'.

I've had quite a lot of interaction (non-adversarial) with Chicago cops in that time.

What would you expect? You are directly helping them. The worst thing someone in your position is likely to witness is maybe some 'locker-room talk' about some crazy shit they got away with that no regular citizen could ever get away with. But that's only going to happen if the cop is blindly arrogant or if they think that you are "one of them." Otherwise, any cop with even half a brain is going to keep his mouth shut.

I'm not saying all cops are bad; I'm just saying your anecdote is, at best, no more convincing than the AC you responded to and probably somewhat less since he did find himself thrust into an adversarial interaction with the police union, although he didn't realize until afterward.

"The problem originated on high ( started at the chief and snowballed )."

That's the problem in a nutshell and it is certainly NOT unique to cops or government departments. If the boss doesn't buy it you're dead in the water, the number one reason for the boss not to buy it is office politics. I have found the software industry much less stressfull by ignoring executive politics and just being happy that I get paid either way.

In which case, $250k per square mile doesn't really seem that bad to me, though, assuming it's the one-time installation fee and not a yearly operational cost. That's 640 acres, and at Chicago's population density of 12k per square mile means the system only costs $20 per "covered" resident.

In which case, $250k per square mile doesn't really seem that bad to me, though, assuming it's the one-time installation fee and not a yearly operational cost. That's 640 acres, and at Chicago's population density of 12k per square mile means the system only costs $20 per "covered" resident.

If this system is deployed, I predict that silencers and/or ballistic knives will become popular on Chicago's black market. If there weren't already such well-known, low-tech devices that can defeat this system, I might consider its merits. I wish we'd embrace good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to find technological shortcuts around it. These arms-race scenarios are only one reason I feel that way.

If we really wanted to reduce crime, we'd legalize the personal use of drugs by adults, release all of the non-violent drug offenders, and use the (tremendous amount of) extra jail space for violent criminals. We'd have more honor that way too, if we only used police to go after criminals who hurt others and stopped using them to tell adults what they may ingest. Unlike the ShotSpotter system, this would both reduce crime and save money.

.22 sub sonic rounds and a 2 liter bottle duct filled with plastic bags taped to the end will work as a suppressor for quite a few shots. A 20 Oz bottle will work for a couple of shots and is more concealable. The ammo costs the same as regular.22LR ammo, $3 for 50 rounds was cheapest I found it. It hurts the accuracy, but most gun crime is at extremely close range; less than 5 yards, IIRC.

Not that it would be very useful for street crime, bit if you have a.22 rifle with a long barrel just using the subs

If we really wanted to reduce crime, we'd legalize the personal use of drugs by adults, release all of the non-violent drug offenders, and use the (tremendous amount of) extra jail space for violent criminals.

You're absolutely right. Even if it was just marijuana it would have a huge effect. The amount of manpower and money wasted chasing drug crimes is staggering.

I would go one step further and increase the manpower and resources devoted to solving/protecting against property crime as well. The benefits

If this system is deployed, I predict that silencers and/or ballistic knives will become popular on Chicago's black market. If there weren't already such well-known, low-tech devices that can defeat this system, I might consider its merits. I wish we'd embrace good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to find technological shortcuts around it. These arms-race scenarios are only one reason I feel that way.

Silencers don't work in real life the way they do in the movies. There is still a pretty loud bang. So what makes you think this technology won't work with silencers?

If we really wanted to reduce crime, we'd legalize the personal use of drugs by adults, release all of the non-violent drug offenders, and use the (tremendous amount of) extra jail space for violent criminals. We'd have more honor that way too, if we only used police to go after criminals who hurt others and stopped using them to tell adults what they may ingest. Unlike the ShotSpotter system, this would both reduce crime and save money.

Seems to me, this system is designed "to go after criminals who hurt others". You are contradicting yourself.

I'm aware that silencers aren't perfect. The point was not whether there is a loud bang. The point is whether the designers of this system were expecting such a countermeasure, and whether their system can pick up muffled gunshots as easily as any other. If it can, are there false positives every time an engine backfires, or someone lights a firecracker, or any number of things that can make sudden loud noises? Even if they can perfectly account for all of those things with 100.0000% accuracy, why wouldn't criminals switch to using other weapons? Right now they use guns because they are a convenient way to present deadly force. If they became a lot less convenient, it's logical they would use something else. These questions need serious, evidence-backed answers before it's reasonable to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in them.

My point is that if two gangs fight over turf, or if someone wants to murder, a system like this might determine the choice of weaponry. It would not determine whether the deed is done. Please explain how I contradict myself by wanting an effective way to stop violent criminals instead of wanting a less effective way (I get the funny feeling you won't try to explain that one). "You contradict yourself" isn't the fatal objection you imagine it to be when you can't back it up with something substantial. Comments on argumentation aside, when we need to go after criminals who hurt others, we have police officers for that. Those officers would have a lot more available manpower and jailspace if we stopped prosecuting personal drug use. I think that's a much better long-term solution than relying on a single technical measure that invites the creation of countermeasures.

I would say that if they could link this technology with fast acting satellite survailance it would go a long way to reducing the cost of solving a homicide in terms of man hours.Since it would be close to the same as a policeman thinking their is a crime in progress I would also think that would cut down on some of the privacy hurdles we all know and love.If you had pinpoint precision, plus satellite & infrared / thermal coverage you could do some real damage to crime.

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

I doubt the police have the most informed opinion. RTFA, the city didn't even hook it into the 911 call center, the way the successful cities did.

My guess is the police are looking at the $250,000/square mile cost and saying "We could put 4 more officers on the street for that money." Never mind the misunderstanding of the difference between up front and ongoing costs.

Basing a decision on a flawed study and the opinions of someone who believes they will financially suffer is not a recipe for a good result.

I suspect that as the police might be on the receiving end of some of those fired shots, they would be unlikely to be opposed to a system which worked reliably.
If the system was not installed or operated correctly then there is probably some blame attached to the company for not offering the correct support to ensure these went smoothl

Interesting point - but I suspect it's actually to the converse of what you're suggesting.

Consider - the police will (generally) have localised those shots that are being fired at them - so this system makes little difference in that case. However, what it will do is locate other gunshots - which the police will then have to respond to (and thus putting themselves in the firing line)

This is the truth! They have no legal requirement "to protect and serve" except in very specific situations where they explicitly promise someone they will protect them, and that rarely happens due to the liability factor.

Maybe is because I'm European and the concept of self-defence is so alien to us, but the idea of police forces not being liable for leave you in the cold with no protection whatsoever, more so when an alert call has been made... it's frightening.

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

Police aren't unbiased either. If a tool (or effective policing) pushes crime out of an area, you don't need as many police officers in that area, do you? And if it works in one part of the city, it'll probably work in others. That means layoffs. Let me know when you hit that stage of your life where you realize that the police have little incentive to effectively enforce the law.

Sorta similar to firefighters. Fire calls have dropped in the last 20-30 years to 1/4 of what they used to be; more sprinkler systems, better building and electrical codes, etc. We just don't need nearly as many firefighters these days. So rather than lay off firefighters (or reassign them to work in small rescue crews, or in ambulances as rescue techs) the city of Boston now sends out in many cases TWO fire trucks to any medical or vehicle crash call, putting unnecessary miles on expensive heavy equipment and running up fuel bills.

That's some lovely insights you have there. Do you actually have any experience in an emergency service to back up you up your claims (none of which are correct)? I certainly hope that next time you are trapped in a vehicle covered in blood and sitting in your own shit and vomit, your flesh all broken and mangled and your eyes hanging our of their sockets that society can spare $50 in fuel to pay for extra services to be directed your way. If they aren't needed, well they can return to station.

...and with it shall go the supposed evidence. The paltry statistic of 244 gunshots in a two month period vs. 177 in another does not indicate anything about supposed trends in gun crime. Furthermore, yearly gun crime is what is of importance, not a few weeks.

I regularly see news stories in Boston where the police get a shotspotter alert, show up, find a guy bleeding out on the sidewalk, and sometimes they find him fast enough to call EMS and get him to a hospital and save his life.

I don't think they should have cameras, but the technology is sound- and it certainly is better use of tax money than where most money is going (all sorts of anti-terrorism crap.) The question: why is such a simple technology so hideously expensive? There should be little patentable in the field, given how old and obvious sonic triangulation is. The equipment is super simple- an embedded computer in an outdoor enclosure with a microphone...

Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?

Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?

Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.

Red herring. These cameras help investigate and prosecute crimes by taking pictures when a shot is fired, of the area where the shot was fired.

Nothing was said about preventing crimes.

Now that you have demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension, please shut the fuck up.

Easy there. Crime prevention isn't a red herring, unless you think a person walking down the street should care about which particular thug wants to harm him. I can hypothetically imagine the thug now, saying "Bruce got locked up because the camera took his picture - I'm Joe and I'll be mugging you instead." If more violent crimes are being prosecuted, that's probably a good thing. But if that isn't making the streets any safer, then lack of prosecutions is not the source of the problem.

Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?

Because in the UK, the home of the highest number of cameras per capita, the technology has not helped one bit. Crime is not down, and the cameras are used instead to look into peoples' windows (as been documented more than once). Cameras are an excuse for the flatfoots to get flat asses from sitting around all day.

In other words, impracticality and blatant misuse as entertainment.

That's why.

That's totally ignoring any sociological/political argument which I will not go into here because it will be like pissing into an ocean of piss.

Why? Because to some of us, some things are more important than safety.

Please explain why we shouldn't strip search every single air passenger, if it could help stop a single terrorist incident? The government is manipulating you with fear, and some of us have had enough of it already. This just about privacy, this is about the government getting once step closer to forming a police state. This is about the progressive destruction of presumption of innocence.

The difference between a system like ShotSpotter and a full CCTV system may be a large one technologically, but politically it is very very small. All it takes is for one go-getter politician to say "well we could have caught the criminal, but unfortunately footage from after the incident only painted a partial picture."

The above paragraph is an opinion, not a statement of fact. It happens to be an opinion that I hold, and you are free to disagree with it if you chose to do so. You will find that often-t

The triangulation is the easy part. The hard part is figuring out what exactly is a gunshot and what is firecrackers, backfires, kids popping plastic bags, etc. Being able to accurately determine this is not trivial, and thus is costly.

Of course, as something sold to the government, there's always going to be excessive markup, because they know they can get away with it.

Charge $300,000 per sq mile and kick $50k back to the police department for 'overtime related to training and special classes.' Don't monitor if the classes are performed or even necessary. Don't check if the system is used after implementation.

The police get funding - they win. The company gets cash - they win. The politicians get to look like they're doing something using cutting edge technology against crime which they can feature in their next election - they win.

It's the perfect solution! No one who matters (in the mind of our leaders) gets hurt.

It works great, or so I'm told. They're able to get cops to where the shooter fired within minutes- and in plenty of time to round up witnesses who swear they "saw nuttin".

There's been at least one drive by in my 'work' neighborhood, and about a dozen+ deaths within a mile. Two bullets in our building. One in the front door within 5 minutes of me entering it (now THAT will freak you out- come into work, forget something, go back to the car and the door has been shot).

How long are these expected to last? If it is only like 10 years.... It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.

TBH though I can't imagine how it could possibly cost so much. For that price you could say.... Create a city wide wifi system and stick a microphone on the top of every third telephone pole in the city. Which would be more accurate. The

East Palo Alto was the first city to have complete coverage. They say it has helped reduce shootings. It is also helping to resolve a mystery regarding a plane crash - http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/audio-of-tesla-plane-crash-may-help-in-determining-cause/ [nytimes.com] . I knew the pilot, who was extraordinarily careful about flying his plane and had flown out of Palo Alto airport hundreds of times. We suspect he lost his left engine during takeoff and was pulled left into the power lines (normal procedu

East Palo Alto was the first city to have complete coverage. They say it has helped reduce shootings.

Shootings are way down in East Palo Alto, which used to be "Murder City, USA". But not because they have a ShotSpotter system. The highest crime area, Whiskey Gulch, was where the liquor stores were concentrated. It's the only place I've ever seen a fully bulletproofed fried chicken outlet, with food delivered through an armored turntable.

Anyone who is somewhat important in a gang would be wise to get all the kids in the neighborhood to damage the acoustic sensors. If this was impossible, another smart move would be to start shooting A LOT. Not at anything in particular-- just grab a pistol, put it in a bag, and fire. Get out of the area quickly (ditch the gun if necessary) and waste police resources tremendously. I'm betting that after thousands of rounds being pumped into the ground the police will stop responding.

You're missing the point.Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from carrying guns, but they do stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns.

If I'm just a regular guy who wants to carry a gun for defense purposes, I'm not going to do it if it's illegal.If I'm planning to commit a felony with a gun, do I really care if having the gun itself is illegal?

The idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals entirely is laughable.Handguns use 100 year old technology. Criminals want guns. It would be just as effective as prohibition:Someone will set up a shop in their basement and start cranking out illegal guns at $1000 each for a massive profit.That's if people don't take the easy route and smuggle them across the border.

And this doesn't even get into the humans rights side of gun ownership, or the fact that it is guaranteed in our constitution and very much a part of our national philosophy.

Someone will set up a shop in their basement and start cranking out illegal guns at $1000 each for a massive profit.

How much does a basement shop cost to set up, and how much is the machinists time worth, and how long does it take to make an effective handgun, and how much would the cost of materials be?

Not trolling, as I'm all for back street manufacturing and it would be interesting to know.. one thing you didn't factor in is that your basement shop had better remain secret because as soon as the law com

That's because they're properly trained to use the guns while they do national service. You can hardly compare mass ex-military gun control to what we have where they're nothing more than penis extensions for morons and cowards.

That's because they're properly trained to use the guns while they do national service. You can hardly compare mass ex-military gun control to what we have where they're nothing more than penis extensions for morons and cowards.

Bah.

Like most people who hold "training" in such high regard and believe that it's the difference between someone who can be trusted with a dangerous weapon and someone who cannot, I'm sure you've never had any.

Training teaches some useful things, certainly. One very important thing that it teaches is how to safely handle a weapon. But that portion of the training only takes about 30 minutes (though many hours of practice help to ingrain the safe-handling habits). Beyond that, all of the training tha

"Meanwhile, France and the UK and most of continental Europe do enforce gun control laws"

And meanwhile you *still* get situations like biker gangs in Denmark going at each other with shoulder fired AT4-HEAT antitank grenades.

Contrast and compare to Switzerland - an entire country that is armed to the teeth in every house across the land, and there isn't mayhem.

Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.

--
BMO

That's why I often refer to this as a religious issue. For gun-control advocates, the comparison between Denmark and Switzerland requires an explanation. It seems they would rather ignore it. In my way of looking at things, if I were an advocate of gun control and encountered such a comparison, I must either give a truly satisfying explanation for it that is consistent with gun-control, or I must abandon gun-control.

There is no shame in abandoning gun-control if I notice that there are fatal flaws in

Here in America, the right to own and bear arms is very much a deeply rooted ideal that stems from the founding of this country. It is statistically proven over and over that here in America, states and cities that allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have much lower crime rates than in states or cities that restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

I live in Atlanta, Georgia. I'm quite familiar with the standard issue backwater responses to gun control. Canada has even more guns per capita and less homicide rate due to their strict enforcement of gun laws. Same goes for most of Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Local gun control policies don't work because they are local. It's like having a dry county. People are still going to drive a few miles and get liquor.

Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, and the most modern gun technology during his day allowed a person to fire a round every twenty seconds. He had some good things to say, but treating the founding fathers with any sort of reverence would be something they abhorred, since most of them believed that dogmas are evil and that reason was the path to enlightenment.

The logistics of supplying troops in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Somalia are what caused their defeat. There are hundreds of military and national guard installations, a huge reserve of oil, and years worth of supplies located on a national network of well-maintained roads and bridges, railways, and thousands of airports.

Curious to note that Switzerland, with high gun ownership levels, is a very low-crime zone. The UK, by contrast, is the most violent country in Europe.

The swiss are trained in a national guard and allowed to keep their semi-automatic weapon. In America there is no prerequisite to gun ownership. Here are the Swedish requirements via Wikipedi

The swiss are trained in a national guard and allowed to keep their semi-automatic weapon. In America there is no prerequisite to gun ownership. Here are the Swedish requirements via Wikipedia:

I don't think you appreciate one very simple thing. What you mention there means that if a Swede went nuts and decided one day to go on a shooting spree, his weapon training would make him a more effective and more dangerous murderer. So not only is he armed, he's also trained in how to kill since it's pretty hard

Crime in the US is mainly the result of wide social disparities, much like in South America.

Do you really believe that's a satisfying explanation? That it's normal and natural to assume humans will deal with social disparities by becoming criminals?

There are some people who grow up dirt-poor, with none of the luxuries many take for granted. Yet they don't steal, they don't murder, they don't deal with their situation that way. Others in the same situation become career criminals. I find the differen

you link to a lie, propaganda by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs that has been debunked. Only 17% of Mexican guns confiscated were traceable at all, the others were from non-US foreign countries and without means of tracing. But you believe the anti-guns lies of a U.S. agency because it suits your anti-gun bias.

The high murder rates in the U.S.A. occur in areas with subcultures that have breakdown of family structure. No father to raise and keep young males in line mean

hah! the racism is between your ears, I've flushed you out, racist! You had some racial group that came to mind when you read my words, but I can show you examples of what I'm saying using any major racial group in the USA. Their are european-descent "white" cities with the problem I've mentioned in Ohio, the problem exists in African descent "black" Chicago south side, t

Why don't you take a peek at crime statistics by city [wikipedia.org] and then take a peek at the articles for each city listed (preferably, the cities with high numbers of violent crime per year). Tell us if you think the poster above you is being racist then.

Hell, you could even do some volunteering for some school or organization in your local ghetto and ask some people about what goes on where they live. Let us know what you find.

I had no idea believing in reasonable gun control laws and backing that up with statistics was called trolling. Thanks for reminding me to get back to wrapping things up, and getting the hell out of here.

You've got the right to buy a gun without a permit and watch people get murdered on television and your choice of chain fast food restaurants, but you can't see a nipple or have a reasonable discussion on the merits of socialized services or have any time off from work without the fear of getting fired.

not amazing at good, huge difference between decent law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, and evil lawless savages banding together in gangs who have no regard for human life or for morality. Already a proven fact that lawful concealed carry reduces crime rate.

No. That is a gross oversimplification. The point is that handguns are illegal in Chicago, yet last week there were 40 shootings. Let me repeat that. Last week there were 40 shootings in Chicago despite the fact that handguns are illegal in Chicago. This seems to me to be a good indication that gun control laws like those that Chicago has do not work. It's all very nice to say that gee, if we just outlawed guns then nobody would have them and no one would get shot, but last I checked, we don't live in a world populated with unicorns and faeries.

You'd think that Chicago, of all places, would understand the implications of prohibition. When alcohol was illegal it still flowed underground. Why would the politicians expect that making guns illegal would make the m go away? In fact, from where I sit it has made the situation worse, because the law abiding citizen, following the law, has no gun, but the criminal, not giving a fuck about the law, does.

Anecdotally, I live in a small town (approx' 20K people) in Arizona. More than half the population here has a handgun (I have 2), closer to 75% if you add rifles and shotguns. In the last 2 years there has been 2 murders, only one with a gun, and that involved a gang that chased someone and happened to catch up with them in our town.

As I said, this is anecdotal, but in my personal current experience, a high proportion of gun ownership does not lead to more shootings. In fact, it seems to me that more guns, at least here, leads to lower crime overall, which suggests to me that socio-economic and cultural issues are the actual problem and not the presence of "too many guns"

My overall point is that the gun issue is not as simple as a lot of gun control advocates would like to make them, and that in a city with strict gun control laws large numbers of shootings occur. In Chicago, with strict gun laws, the murder rate is 18 per 100,000 residents. In Phoenix, the murder rate is 10.5 per 100,000 residents, yet Chicago has a strict no-handgun law, and in Phoenix you can buy and carry a handgun with no permit. Since the murder rate in Chicago is 75% higher than Phoenix, I'd say that the laws in Chicago weren't working so good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate [wikipedia.org]

So you trust your gut over actual data? Gun control has been proven to do very little to prevent gun crime. The only people who don't believe it are those who are selling a message or those who think it is so obvious that they don't even look at the research.

While we're at it, putting people in jail for using drugs doesn't work either. We stopped putting people in jail for not paying their bill hundreds of years ago because it didn't work, maybe we should bring that back? Oh wait, the new bankruptcy l

Vermont is the only state that has no gun licensing or permits of any kind. They would have low gun crime because they are vermont. But you did say freely carry so I digress. Also you would be wrong anyways unless you have some good citations. Below I provide links allowing you to compare gun law strictness to gun deaths by state.

Not quite...In Illinois, if you even want to TOUCH a gun, you need a FOID card (firearms owner ID).In Chicago, all firearms must be registered, and no handguns can be registered after some date in 1982-ish (basically, you can have a shotgun or rifle, but can't own a pistol).Open and concealed cary are basically banned in IL, unless you are retired police (in other words, Drew Peterson could conceal carry, but R. Lee Ermey couldn't).

All these restrictions are unconstitutional. Period.

I _DARE_ mayor Daley to produce copies of the perpetrators' FOID cards, and the registration of their firearms.What's that? They don't have one?Well, I for one am SHOCKED that someone who would shoot at another human being just because they felt like it, wouldn't at least make sure they could legally do so.(Heavy sarcasm there).

As for the shotspotter system, I remember seeing examples of this about 12-15 years ago; it was highly touted for a bit, then kinda dissappeared...It was combined with all the police cameras that were going up back then (just in bad neighborhoods, we swear... sorry, but now EVERY neighborhood is a bad one, so we need cameras everywhere).The last part is not an exaggeration... next time you go through Chicago, look for little blue blinking LEDs on the lampposts... then ask yourself who won the cold war.

my wife and her cousin were mugged in full view of police camera on Argyle street ("vietnamese town"), and the images from the camera on telephone pole were utterly useless. couldn't see under hat brim to see face, the perps know they can just keep their chin slightly down with a cap and they can rob, rape, and murder in camera shot. the percentage of crimes solved using those camera pictures is in the realm of statistical noise.

Good decent people own guns in illinois and have their FOID card, but they aren't the ones doing drive by shooting or holding up liquor stores or banks. But that idiot hypocrite Mayor Daley, who relies on armed people for protection, says gun ownership by good decent law-abiding people (the ones who don't have guns in chicago right now) having the means to defend themselves would mean an explosion of crime. what a moron, both my brothers live in states that allow concealed carry, and in both their cities of residence the crime rate has plummeted.

imo its a shame a lot of american citizens think like that.. with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.. how could the solution to a gun crime problem involve more guns.. id have thought a better solution is to ban guns nation wide effectively making it easier to spot them and prosecute violations.. if anyone uses "hunting" as an argument against it, theyre sadistic rednecks, so you can disregard w/e they say.

Because the idea of "spot and prosecute violations" is all based on the noble idea of playing fair. You seem to embrace the notion that our criminals run around like they are up against some Victorian-era detective like Sherlock Holmes, and will logically surrender when ordered to do so by police.

At some levels we've dropped way beneath that high water mark of civilization. If the criminals believe that they can simply shoot their way out of a situation, then they do. If they believe there will be no retr

Oh, and before anyone makes the incorrect assumption, no, I do not have nor have I ever owned any guns myself. I don't hunt. And I do not belong to the NRA. I just look at the crap going on in the urban areas, and can see that gun restrictions are completely failing our society.

"with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me"

WTF are you babbling about? Been watching too many cop shows methinks.:)

Unless you live next door to a police station, response time is still "reaction time", not "intervention/interdiction/prevention".

That means the cops show up to scrape your dead arse off the pavement if you lost the fight.

In my case, I lived far enough out that the cops couldn't find my house for more than a half-hour. The white trash crackheads partying on my perimeter road told my wife (I was deployed at the time) to piss off when she asked them to leave. That they didn't do more is likely because she was carrying a 5.56 Ruger Mini-14. She returned to the house, put a few rounds into the ground (NOT horizontally, no one was in danger) where they couldn't see the impact area but we could dig up the bullets if required), and they left rapidly never to return.

The sheriff was pleased, our neighbors ditto, and we got no more visitors. Beats going home to a fucked/dead wife and a looted house in my book.

BTW, the US can't be peaceful because it is too culturally and economically diverse. American subgroups have nothing in common, so the only way to keep society reasonably peaceful is to contain the most violent by force. Even the Coalition allows Iraqi heads of household to have one full-auto battle rifle because it is necessary in order to avoid being a victim.

Why $250K? Multiple highly sensitive very durable microphones, sound analysis software, wireless communications technology and infrastructure support. Solar power or wiring into city power systems. Installation and test for acoustic variation around each microphone system to avoid sound bounce artifacts. Very fast analysis and response all secured to avoid hacking or sabotage. Most of the sophistication is required to avoid false positives, some of it required to survive Chicago winters, some of it arm

People killing people is a separate problem from firearms ubiquity. It is easy to legally purchase and carry a weapon in both Isreal and Switzerland, yet they don't have high gun crime rates. Every large survey of gun crime rates and gun control laws show very low correlation between the two.

They have a peaceful society, prosperity, and hot babes. The Swiss experience is THE argument for the classical definition of "militia" as used by the US Founders. Their government dare not become oppressive given a completely armed citizenry. Their traditions and cultural uniformity have combined with this to produce an excellent place to live.

Whatever one thinks of Israel, they are ready to react on-the-spot to attacks and often do. Given that p

Motive, means, opportunity... All are required for murder. Guns are one mechanism for providing the means. Even if you could take away all guns, there are still other means available for humans to kill.

What is the motivation for 40 attempted murders in one week in the city? Is anyone looking into that?